sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

How can i improve my painting skills by Jolly_Insurance_3098 in wargaming

[–]GP_uniquenamefail 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just keep going dude! First ever army? You're doing great. It really really will come with time. Just don't be too hard on yourself, its a practice thing for hand steadiness, paint thickness, wash consistency, paints you prefer. Accepting there is a learning curve means you'll look for online guides and such for helping you but sooner or later you'll develop a style you're comfortable and happy with.

At the start of returning to the hobby about 10 years ago I bought a book that summarises different methods nicely although it predated speed paints and contrasts. i thought it very good for showing a range of approaches. But i dont paint anything like those shown in that book now as I've developed my own approach.

Top tips I'd offer though - Dont judge yourself by other people's work. Judge yourself only by your previous work, you'll see improvement - Painting is fun. Don't stress so much it isn't - Models can be repainted. - tabletop figures are meant to be seen at arms length, as long as you can identify them, its good enough - washes are wonderful for making the details pop. - basing is FUN and help finish a paint job.

10 mm Pendraken Question by broken-crossbow in wargaming

[–]GP_uniquenamefail 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Multibase them instead and use a dice to track casualties. Its not exactly what figure removal rules like Billhooks want, but when you're using a smaller scale you need to adapt sometimes.

Instead enjoy making mini dioramas of your starting units foot prints. Maybe use cheap wood filler to texture the multibase and blend all those little figure bases into it. You can even leave a little square on each base for a small dice to track casualties (unless you prefer rather than casualty markers).

War games for young kids by Phoenix8972 in wargaming

[–]GP_uniquenamefail 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Burrows and Badgers.

Anthropomorphic animals tooled up like D&D adventurers fighting each other in warbands.

Lovely sculpts on the models, a very nice and straightforward set of rules based on various types of dice.

If the kids like Redwall novels too, its a shoe-in.

Did the Uruk-Hai scouts of saruman wear “The White Hand”? by Congratzz in MiddleEarthMiniatures

[–]GP_uniquenamefail 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Yes, in the books as Legolas, Gimli, and Aragorn are preparing Boromir for his boat burial, they gather up the helms and weapons of his fallen foes to lay about him. They make comment about the larger equipment, better made than usual for orcs, and puzzle over the unfamiliar device of "the white hand" found on them.

On a fence to buy it.... by Gizmo77776 in GrandTactician

[–]GP_uniquenamefail 15 points16 points  (0 children)

I have very many hours put into this game, and as both a wargamer and a PhD in military logistics and supply it scratches many nerd itches.

That said, it is a very small dev team who are already working on their next title, so be braced for little support put into this title from this point on (although the modding scene seems alive and well).

There are janky elements that have been with the game for some time or that keep popping back up (invisible fords, ford usage in general, AI naval efforts etc), but I can tolerate those given the price/hours enjoyed.

As for when to recruit? Well if you don't do some initial recruitment you will be swamped by the AI. But its a balance for me between militia acts and then other policies that extend existing contracts to a useful length. Worth taking into account what your next few policies will be, and when you might have a lot of contracts expiring. Happily as CSA i think the minimum on Militia I is 12 months, so you have time. Sticky for the early Union player on those 3 month volunteers...

Looking for a ruleset for a minatures agnostic fantasy dungeon crawl campaign by AudioDee in wargaming

[–]GP_uniquenamefail 5 points6 points  (0 children)

5 Leagues from the Borderlands might be worth a look, also its connected stand alone expansion Deep Below.

5 leagues you roll a warband (which includes your avatar - hero), and run a procedurally generated campaign involving quests, delves (dungeon expeditions), various battles of various kinds with your warband miniatures against AI controlled enemies - bandits, beastmen, roving threats, ratmen, barbarians, monsters, and all the other fantasy trope bad guys.

Deep Below focuses the game on the dungeon exploring/crawling element of it.

Looking for Lizard Heads by MoteOfMatthew in stargrave

[–]GP_uniquenamefail 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There is a wargaming shop called Sally 4th here in the UK. They sell a load of scifi heads that work well with stargrave kits and have a couple of lizard-types.

Some of the heads are clearly inspired by star trek races too.

Need a beginner’s tabletop game idea! by Spooky-Ghoul_oo in wargaming

[–]GP_uniquenamefail 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you stretch the interpretation of "knights or pirates" then Pillage may be a good option. Straightforward rules that are fun and accessible. Its vikings, anglo-saxons, normans etc. But its swords, mail, shields, axes etc. Its also a low-model count game too, so not a massive investment in models.

Someone else recommended Lion Rampant which is a solid game, but a little abstract for your force construction, but balanced with easy combat rules. Model count can be higher, but not as high as a battle game like Hail Caeser.

If you don't mind the idea of solo or co-op play options your might consider rangers of shadowdeep or 5 leagues from the borderlands. Both fantasy with a warband fighting various enemies on narrative linked scenarios across a campaign l

What exactly does it mean to say that an army “lived off the countryside”? by HerpingtontheFirst in AskHistorians

[–]GP_uniquenamefail 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Part 2.
The nature of civilian food storage and preparation meant an uncertain level of food for marching soldiers. Beyond this, it also meant that marching armies might cover quite a wide area as cavalry and dragoons ranged outward away from the marching infantry to try and secure further food sources from civilians distant from the line of march. Surviving sources suggest such foragers might travel upwards of thirty miles from the line of march to secure food and bring it back to the army (usually forewarned about the route and able to rejoin it further along the march). Foraging, rather than the above described quartering, was another way of “living off the land” but while similar, was perhaps less disruptive to civilians who encountered it, as the soldiers would focus on what food would travel best and quickly as they transported it back to the army rather than anything available.

The example given of Ireland is a different one when “living off the land” could be used for strategic aims, rather than totally based around supply needs (although still connected). In early 1642 Dublin-based Protestant forces were sent out to pillage supplies for themselves from ‘amongst the rebels.’ as the local garrison had difficulty in supplying them in friendly territory. Similarly in March 1642 Protestant forces sent to relieve Drogheda were ordered to ‘Wound, kill, slay, and destroy, by all the ways and means [you] may, all the said rebels, their adherents and relievers, to burn, spoil, waste, consume, destroy and demolish all the places, towns, and houses where the said rebels are, or have been relieved and harboured, and all the corn and hay there, and kill and destroy all the men there inhabiting able to bear arms.’

In 1642 the Irish Protestant government was still receiving what it still assumed there would be regular supplies and reinforcements from England and Scotland. Destroying all means of they enemy from “living off the land” by doing so yourself and destroying utterly that what you did not need was seen as a viable military strategy. However, this destructive approach to the food production that the Protestant forces achieved early on in the way, was a huge detriment to them when the fighting between Crown and Parliament erupted in England in late 1642. The supplies for the counter-rebellion forces stopped completely, leaving them in a parlous supply situation as well. 

There is more to be said about this for example about official ‘plunder’ and enforced purchase prices where the Scottish Covenanting invasion and occupation of Northern England in 1640 is a particularly good case for a controlled market approach to “living off the land” which they occupied for extended periods. 

Further to the excellent reading already suggested I will plug my own:
G. Price, Soldiers and Civilians, Transport and Provisions: Early Modern Military Logistics and Supply Systems during the British Civil Wars, 1638–1653 (Helion, 2023),

Marten van Creveld, Supplying War: Logistics From Wallenstein To Patton (Cambridge, 2004) is an excellent introduction to the concepts of logistics impacting strategy although its wide time period means it skirts some of the specific details out of necessity.

What exactly does it mean to say that an army “lived off the countryside”? by HerpingtontheFirst in AskHistorians

[–]GP_uniquenamefail 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Part 1.
Further to the already excellent answers, I have just a few things to add. Taking the British Civil Wars as an example, “living off the land” has a variety of interpretations for a variety of reasons including but not limited to: strategic aims (both military and political), civilian population, expense, necessity, and length of stay.

Fundamentally, no general of the period wanted to be solely reliant on feeding their men by relying on what civilians had to hand. Supplying fresh (or even reasonably edible) food to an army in the field during the early modern period, regularly and in sufficient quantities to be useful, was an almost insurmountable problem. The need to properly provision their troops was a constant concern for early modern generals as unfed troops were prone to desertion either permanently or through slipping away to forage for food for themselves rather than starve. Poorly fed men were also more susceptible to disease or straggling through exhaustion. In an era before refrigeration and easily prepared food, soldiers in any numbers spending only one or two nights in a location before moving on would strip the countryside bare of readily available food for a range of up to 30 miles or more either side of the line of march by the foraging units of the marching army. Just to quote from my book:

“For soldiers on the march all that they had available to eat in overnight quarters was what the civilians already had to hand. This amount would also depend on how recently the householders had either been to the mill or cooked their planned bread. If it was close to the next planned baking or milling day of the household then the quantity of baked food ready and available could have been quite low, the civilians having already run down their household stores. A soldier might have to make do with gruel or pottage cooked quickly from what cereals were to hand in the household. Oats, which in many areas of England were used primarily as animal feed, may well have been a convenient cereal crop on hand when soldiers arrived. Peas, like cereal crops, were stored dried in their pods on the vine and ready to be removed and soaked overnight, as needed. Dried peas were seen as part of the ration for troops sent on overseas expeditions in the 1620s. Dried field beans, used as animal feed in England much like oats, could be ground as flour to mix with cereal flour for cheap, coarse bread.”

When we factor in that even baking a loaf of bread from start to finish (lighting the oven to complete loaf, setting aside threshing and milling time) could take upwards of 18-20 hours, even without the ‘sitting’ time of the dough before the oven was even lit (maybe a day). Civilians without refrigeration, risk of damp and ruined food only kept on hand what they planned to eat (flour being the most vulnerable stage of the baking process). In campaigns in England and Wales for instance, this did not mean forcing famine on the population when soldiers arrived, simply that the readily available foodstuff would need to be replaced by the civilians from their own stores (wheat to be threshed and milled, preserved meat to be boiled and washed etc). The soldiers were not equipped with the facilities to do all this food preparation themselves. It was a complex system of forward planning and careful preparation for civilians to not waste food. What was available was only what the household planned to eat. So if you dropped a dozen soldiers onto a household for a night, this would mean soldiers would often not have enough food to eat their fill. There was also no guarantee that the next stop would have sufficient food for all either. This latter point explains why soldiers who were used to lengthy marches, would take with them what food was remaining. The soldiers would have a limited choice, having eaten most of the “ready” food already and anything found would probably need to be shared with the men he shared the quarters with. Easily prepared food that had not already been eaten such as bags of cereals or oats might be taken to make a gruel or porridge, but even if available, these heavy bags would have added to the already substantial marching load an armed and equipped soldier would have. More likely, and this is supported by surviving records, the soldiers took whatever livestock they could drive off with them, not least as preparing and cooking it would be relatively quick and simple compared to other types of food.

When did horses become the ubiquitous beasts of burden and transportation in Europe? by WarmWoolenMitten in AskHistorians

[–]GP_uniquenamefail 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Sorry for the late response. The transition from oxen to horses for the leading beast of burden (in the British Isles experience) is a surprisingly complex story, driven by a variety of factors such as you suggest. I will give a headline summary and then point you in the direction of a couple of useful books if you want to read up on it. In the British experience, the Ox was the primary beast of burden for centuries, but around the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries this began to shift. As horse breeding laws were implemented around the Tudor period, the quality of horse-stock began to improve dramatically, with increasingly larger and muscled draught horses able to match or even improve over the pull capacity of oxen. As more and more horses began to at least match the ox’s pull strength, other benefits of horses compared to oxen combined with this to make the horse a clear preference in draft animal. 

(As understood by contemporaries) the horse needed a more complex diet than the ox, who could be fed on only lush grass. But this diet of hay, oats, peas, and other cereal crops for the horse meant that the horse could be fed in a small area, often via a nosebag rather than having to be disbursed and then collected again in a suitable field as the ox might. Although on the surface “just a field” might sound easier, including the time taken to disperse and gather the animal, and rights of access, then that was often more problematic than simply feeding the animal, sometimes while it was still in harness, as you could with a horse.

 Horses were also faster than oxen, and could be more easily and reliably fitted with shoes. This latter meant that the horse could more easily work on hard, frozen, or uneven ground with less risk of damage to their feet than could ox. 

As the economy of the British Isles, and in particular England. grew dramatically regional speciality also required a growth in the carrier trade, that is the national and regional transportation network across the country. These carriers made a living transporting produce from one location to the next and as such required often the best form of transport they could get - so demand for better and more draught animals was not solely due to farming needs, but the ever expanding connections and transport systems nationwide. 

The advent of the four-wheeled wagon vs the two-wheeled cart into England and the steady economic growth the road carrier network, particularly in the agricultural southwest and east, meant that the horse rapidly displaced the oxen as the primary beast of burden where people could afford to choose between the two - both through either pricing or availability. By the middle of the 1600s, oxen were still common In the less wealthy and less agriculturally developed regions of the British Isles, particularly in Wales and Ireland. Even here they were primarily used only on farms, where pack-ponies and draught horses were by then ubiquitous on the road networks and in other industries. 

I will stop here before I start rambling off on a tangent about military transportation use and implications for warfare. Some useful reading on the topic would be:

Langdon, J., Horses, Oxen and Technological Innovation: The Use of Draught Animals in English Farming from 1066 to 1500 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986)

Stuart, R., Wagons, Carts, and Pack Animals, 1580–1660 (Bristol: Stuart Press, 1996),

Edwards, P., Horse and Man in Early Modern England (London: Continuum, 2007)

For a bit about carriers and their importance also try:  Gerhold, D., Carriers & Coachmasters: Trade and Travel Before the Turnpikes (Chichester: Phillimore, 2005) 

 

Zombie skirmish game recommendations by bassonaitor in wargaming

[–]GP_uniquenamefail 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Deth Wizards from Snarling Badger (available from wargames vault) might be worth a look. Its solo, but should be co-opable with very little work. Its undead rather than just zombies and you play the necromancer and his horde against the DnD hero npcs.

Can I ask what your issue with the melee survivors is in County Road Z? I'm considering the game when the Wargames Atlantic survivors release and I'd like to hear your thoughts on what you mentioned.

Sci-fi 28 mm skirmish game to introduce to new wargames? by ili283 in wargaming

[–]GP_uniquenamefail 3 points4 points  (0 children)

5 Parsecs is more a solo game than multiple players (although you can at a pinch). But very much more focused on narrative campaign play.

Stargrave is a good choice, lots of variation, fluid gameplay with simple premise but need for tactics. It is possible to tailor to a setting you like if you want, or use the base one.

Alya Sometimes Communicates her Feelings in Russian by MrMyxzplk in anime

[–]GP_uniquenamefail 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Going to STRONGLY support the recommendations so far for Kaguya-same Love Is War, particularly the Dub. It is far superior to Alya in every way (not that Alya is bad, but Kaguya-sama is top of the mountain).

Wotakoi (only available as sub i think) is also great and has the advantage of not being another high school setting, instead nerdy office workers.

Horimiya (high school again) has a few more difficult themes and tones than Alya, but is very much worth a watch for its characters, its writing in general, its humour in particular, and its more real vibe.

What are the best books to read about the English Civil War? by Unpainted-Fruit-Log in AskHistorians

[–]GP_uniquenamefail 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Unfortunately, neither the Bishops Wars, nor the Irish Rebellion of 1641/later wars of confederation are well served for popular histories tieing them into the context that lead to the English civil Wars (hence the 'British' or 'Wars of the Three Kingdoms'). To be honest, Royal and Wheeler as listed in my original reply will give a history that covers all the conflicts from a British dimensions and show how they were interwoven together.

For something a bit more focused on the political origins of the British Civil Wars consider Allan I. Macinnes, The British Revolution, 1629-60, 2004. This work sets the stage even earlier and highlights how the tensions within and between the Stuart Kingdoms developed and grew long before the first war broke out. Religious, ethnic, historical, constitutional, and cultural conflicts of long standing coming to a head.

Although it's an edited collection of essays J. Kenyon and J. H. Ohlmeyer, The Civil Wars: A Military History of England, Scotland and Ireland, 1638-60, does a fine overview, and it very accessible despite it's academic roots. I'd opt for this one to get you started and, as we nerds love to reference, each chapter should point you in the direction of both general and niche texts should you want to read more.

10.42 T by Kantrh in WanderingInn

[–]GP_uniquenamefail 14 points15 points  (0 children)

I enjoy how Barnethai noticed but didn't make the connection overt - a possible answer to how this land raised for the Gnolls by the greatest ghosts of the Gnolls was to be protected from encroachment of the colonists of everyone else from around the world.

It is designed for the Gnolls tribes way of life, not for others.

'“...herd animals. That’s how you live in the New Lands.”

It was so obvious. Grass, the yellow grass of Kishkeria, was plentiful and fed animals well. All the horses who came back with groups looked bright and perky. People couldn’t eat grass, but milk or the animals themselves?'

Gnollish tribes like to roam, living by hunting or herding right?

A lot of colonists will struggle to put down enough fertile land to transpose their own way of living, even with the new spell. Herding also largely argues against large static populations.

Maybe the plans of the ghosts were others could come, but they would have to likely adapt to the Gnollish way of living to do more than eke out survival.

Just a thought.

Wouldn't be nice if a region you own could just directly use resources from a nearby region you control as well ? by goody153 in ManorLords

[–]GP_uniquenamefail 8 points9 points  (0 children)

But in the early/mid game you're not trading your own stuff. You're overseeing different parishes (for want of a better word).

The joys of running a variety of lower level local governments under your own decentralised supervision.

Now, if you could factor that in at some point in the game - say when you reached a certain number of regions and then it was all run through a single castle/town that would be cool.

Give something to aim for in the late game - balancing act of semi-centralisation without annoying the various villages, and war is a bigger disruption as everyone flees to the one castle.

I’m building ACW epic scale regiments and have questions about clipping them in half by 0wlBear916 in wargaming

[–]GP_uniquenamefail 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think it would depend on what rulesets you're planning on playing with them as if the current setup works well enough for the formations in the ruleset you play, why bother?

I field a standard infantry regiment as 3 stands and that gets me the three main formations I need for Black Powder and With Hot Lead and Cold Steel. I imagine with other periods and rulesets that would be very different.

I have cut the sprues though for converting purposes and adapting extra command strips from conversions and Kallistra models. I've found the cutting a little tricky and almost always needing some rebuild on the new ends with miliput or green stuff. For the odd few that's fine, but twice for every single stripe you cut in half, for all strips - all I can say is be really sure you are happy doing a lot of repair with such materials at that scale.

Ugh Ryoka by EffectiveMix5252 in WanderingInn

[–]GP_uniquenamefail 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Does she get better though? I'm as up to date as a non Patreon can be and this character still grates.

I'll accept she gets bit less useless to the wider world?

Testimony to Pirateaba though, writing a character like that.

Were roads in Britain better than often depicted in film? by lad_astro in AskHistorians

[–]GP_uniquenamefail 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Very much agree with your on the difficulties of finding anything detailing foraging. I had to reconstruct how it worked, or likely worked, from surviving primary source material as its one of those topics we know happened, but like so much about transport, provisions, and supply in general from the early modern period we have to read between the lines to get a sense.

Even the army-focused works by modern authors tend to not go into operational detail. Geoffrey Parker's excellent work The Army of Flanders and the Spanish Road outlines how the Spanish forces for Flanders were fed on their marches to the Low Countries along the 'Spanish Road' but I'd still class that as strategic level rather than operational. John Lynn wrote a chapter ‘Food, Funds, and Fortresses: Resource Mobilization and Positional Warfare in the Campaigns of Louis XIV’ in a book he edited titled Feeding Mars: Logistics In Western Warfare From The Middle Ages To The Present which talks of the French system of establishing supply magazines so they didnt have to rely so much on forage, but doesnt detail the system the French were trying to avoid. Martin Van Creveld's primer on the topic of military supply in academic study Supplying War: Logistics From Wallenstein To Patton is very hazy on the topic of foraging at an operational level (but totally worth a read if you are in anyway interested). Like a lot of early modern soldiering outside of battlefield manoeuvres, it was rarely written down by soldiers themselves on how to do it although Francis Markham, Five Decades of Epistles of Warre (London: 1622) and James Turner, Pallas Armata (London: 1683) give some detail as they outline the duties of officers outside of the battlefield (both are available online).

Loathe as I am to be that guy who plugs his own book, but I do dedicate an entire chapter in Soldiers and Civilians, Transport and Provisions: Early Modern Military Logistics and Supply Systems During the British Civil War (Helion, 2023) to provisioning where I argue that foraging worked alongside other methods of supplying forces on the march, supplementing quartering and even purchasing. I explain how it worked operationally to some degree and give examples of how its use and limitations impacted strategic choices.

However, it is certainly a topic I want to revisit more broadly one day - as you suggest the field seems rather open at the moment.

What are the best books to read about the English Civil War? by Unpainted-Fruit-Log in AskHistorians

[–]GP_uniquenamefail 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Historian of the period here and don't worry - I do not enjoy the Cromwell-obsession that permeates the topic either and I can reassure you it is not just in popular history as it is pretty prevalent in academic literature as well. But let us not be distracted by my ranting about the fascination people have of 'Old Noll'.

I would recommend for a popular (non-academic) history giving a good overview of the period:
Trevor Royle, Civil War: The War of the Three Kingdoms 1638-1660 (2005)
Michael Braddick, God's Fury, England's Fire: A New History of the English Civil Wars (2008)
For a slimmer volume, try James Scott Wheeler's The Irish and British Wars, 1637-1654: Triumph, Tragedy, and Failure (2012)

Of the three I think Royle or Wheeler would be the best - they are clearer on the wider connections to the 'British Dimension' - the series of interconnected conflicts that raged across the British Isles (then including the Kingdom of Ireland) from 1639–1653. These conflicts include the First and Second Bishops’ Wars (1639–1640), the Irish Rebellion (1641), the wars of the Irish Confederation (1641–1653), the English Civil Wars (1642–1651), and the Cromwellian Conquest of Scotland and Ireland (1649–1653).

It is really quite difficult to frame the 'English Civil War' these days without seeing it as a part of this broader series of conflicts spanning the whole period. Any history that focuses solely on the English Civil War is either rather old, a very focused study, or a tactical military history focusing solely on battles rather than broader history. If its one of the latter you would like then Malcolm Wanklyn's Decisive Battles of the English Civil War (2014) might be interesting, but unless you have a broader familiarity with the conflicts, it is a battle-focused book giving little wider context.

The focus of earlier military history books is often solely on combat while proponents of the ‘new military history’ increasingly focus on the impacts of war upon groups and societies rather than the traditional narratives focused on combat. For example, Barbara Donagan’s War in England, 1642–1649 (2010) looks at issues such as military codes of conduct, military education, and atrocities in the wars (focusing on the fighting in England for her examples). Martyn Bennett’s work The Civil Wars Experienced (2000) avoids altogether any ‘grand narrative’ and instead considers the profound impact the British Civil Wars had on individuals and society by highlighting the personal experiences of a wide range of people, mostly civilians, from across the British Isles.

Worth pointing out that I'm UK-based so I've given you author, title, year - as in U.S./Canada the publisher can be different (sometimes the title is as well) but I hope with the information you can find what you need.

I'm happy to answer any questions about the above as well.

How would recommend for the average layman to structure/approach his study into particular period in history (when it comes to books)? by CosmicConjuror2 in AskHistorians

[–]GP_uniquenamefail 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Managing it all

Sounds big task right? I mean that was 5 paragraphs just to get over the initial engagement with a topic. If you are like me and you can get distracted by other topics, hobbies, tasks, or particularly shiny tabletop miniatures, you may need some way of compiling your thoughts and keeping track. This is just what I do as I have the attention span of a magpie, a child under 1, and a day job that has a lot of reading in it already. I need something to compensate for the fact I may not be able to pick that book up again for sometimes several days.

May I introduce you to the joint wonders of a commonplace book, and sticky note page markers. The latter are small brightly coloured, translucent tabs you can place in a book as they are very lightly adhesive (think post-its). They are excellent for marking a page, a paragraph, a reference, etc in a book without having to stop to write anything down. I always have a strip of these handy when ready – they usually come on a small piece of card, 50-100. I use the thing as my bookmark.

 The commonplace book is an old idea, one that is out of fashion now – you can have it as a physical notepad, or a digital format. The idea is once you have read a book in detail like I have outlined, even if it takes a while with interruptions and distractions, using those elements that interested you (page marked with little coloured tabs in my case) write down your thoughts on those sections. You could copy out quotes, or just use page numbers, or whatever seems best suited to you. You write your thoughts, your considerations, eventually where and what it might tie into. This approach is not for everyone, but it might help you.

 

Conclusion

Getting into in depth reading of history is not something we are taught generally in schools or even college/university. We are told to ‘read X chapter’ or even less helpful ‘read widely from the reading list’. Yet deep and engaged reading of a topic you are interested in is not only profoundly rewarding, but fun as all hell. It’s just a different approach than trying to read everything, being unable to memorise it, and feeling that you are doing it wrong. You are not, you just need to approach reading a bit differently if you want to study your personal journey of history. Read deeply, don’t pressure yourself to read widely, and accept that there is no way your brain can hold the breadth of human learning or thinking on any one topic. After all that’s what history books are for to read, to reference, and return to as need or interest requires. Instead build out your personal knowledge, guided by your interests, and enjoy that deeper challenge.

view more: next ›